linux-kernel - Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFwG2j_+2pjUJuZqT1yk0xDEyeFMgCxHmxAzfGXHO5qCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:40:28 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Anyway, that's a separate story - semctl(2) is going to be ugly, no matter
> what we do, but the rest of those guys doesn't have to.  How about the
> following (completely untested):

Hmm.  Looks like the RightThing(tm) to me.

The thing that stands out that I question the value of that
HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS thing. Is there any reason we don't just make
all architectures use it? What's the downside? I'm not sure I see the
point of the non-wrapper version.

                  Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/